I have some questions about your definition of "recovered." I think this is a statement that requires detail, otherwise, parents of recently-diagnosed children may misinterpret.
Kids that most people will have difficulty distinguishing from their NT peers
I'm not sure what "most" means -- do you mean someone with no knowledge of autism, or a professional or parent with experience with autism? Does this mean picking a child out, say in a classroom, or having a conversation with the child?
Many of these children, though they act NT are still very fragile in matters relating to their health
What does "act
" mean? Is this an absence of obviously autistic-like behaviors such as flapping, visual stimming, etc, or does this mean that they are functioning as NT peers (in developmental parameters)?
Many may temporarily regress when they get sick or if there is an interruption in treatment.
This seems inconsistent with "recovery" to me. I mean, if you have dealt with "gut" issues, chelated the metals, etc, and your child functions in all ways like an NT child, then how would an interruption in treatment cause a "regression." What would "regression" look like? Does this mean that a "recovered" child would need to continue your treatment forever to appear "recovered."
An example would be like diabetes
I don't see this as a valid analogy, even if it does involve injections. A diabetic person does not just "act" diabetic without treatment, they could eventually die. One could just as easily take a leap with a cancer analogy -- once deemed "recovered" from cancer the patient does not continue aggressive chemo indefinitely. Wouldn't this statement cause parents to unecessarily fear terminating treatment?
This also does not explain children who appear "recovered" who never received any biomedical-type treatment. We don't know what their labs look like, or what would have happened if they had ever received any type of chelator, but they apparently don't need any biomedical treatment to remain "indistinguishable."
The question is subjective in and of itself. Parents are the ones who usually say their child is recovered. Each parent sees their child differently.
Don't you agree that there should be some sort of objective guideline to claim that a treatment has a "recovery" rate? Perhaps like a comprehensive eval demonstrating that a child is functioning within normal limits in all areas (like his NT peers)? Considering the variability of parental reports, do you think the parental survey-type data is valid? This reminds me of what happened with secretin many years ago.
Cured is another issue. Cured means you cannot pick them out from their peers and you need NO INTERVENTION for them to remain indistinguishable.
Having been immersed in autism for over eight years now, I can tell you that this has been the commonly understood definition for "recovered" -- if you are redefining the term "recovered" in your practice, do you feel that the parents understand your interpretation of "recovered?" It sounds as if "recovered" has come to mean "very much improved and not immediately noticeable as having autism."